RE: Failure to Fly

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Failure to Fly

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> RE: Failure to Fly

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/27/2007 9:02:41 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

On December 13th, the 5th carrier division reverted to passivity. I can post the relevant files...

let's check the first set before charging onwards.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 31

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/28/2007 12:05:07 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

OK - i loaded into stock, and the planes flew fine:

i.e.:

Day Air attack on Wake Island [USA] , at 85,72

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 22
B5M/B5N Kate x 42

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
B5M/B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 15

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x B5M/B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
21 x B5M/B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet

and:

Day Air attack on USMC Detachment, 1st Defense Battalion, at 85,72

Japanese aircraft
D3A2 Val x 40

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
18 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet

-----------------------------
So - Did your PBEM get the same results as you?? If he did, i *suspect* that there is something wrong with the mod. What, i have no idea...

If you like, i can run the other set of data that you have.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 32

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/28/2007 8:49:22 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Not sure what you mean. This was our combat report:

Day Air attack on Wake Island [USA] , at 85,72

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 22
D3A2 Val x 40
B5M/B5N Kate x 42

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A2 Val: 5 damaged
B5M/B5N Kate: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 5 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 25

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
20 x B5M/B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
19 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
20 x B5M/B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet

I'll fix up the other set of data. Same place.

< Message edited by herwin -- 7/28/2007 8:56:29 AM >

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 33

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/28/2007 6:16:16 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Not sure what you mean. This was our combat report:

Day Air attack on Wake Island [USA] , at 85,72

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 22
D3A2 Val x 40
B5M/B5N Kate x 42

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A2 Val: 5 damaged
B5M/B5N Kate: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 5 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 25

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
20 x B5M/B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
19 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
20 x B5M/B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet

I'll fix up the other set of data. Same place.

i am confused then - i thought you said that nothing was flying

quote:

Nothing has been flying. Nothing for three turns. Have I found myself in never-never land?

- yet here you are showing that they were flying... so what is the problem???

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 34

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/28/2007 11:35:59 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i am confused then - i thought you said that nothing was flying
quote:

Nothing has been flying. Nothing for three turns. Have I found myself in never-never land?
- yet here you are showing that they were flying... so what is the problem???

I took your advice, changed the airgroup orders, and the 5th carrier division attacked on the fourth day. That was what I posted. I think that was also your test. Then on the fifth day, the planes went quiet again. That's the new stuff.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/29/2007 12:37:25 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

The orders i saw were for straight-out attacks on the ground troops and airfield - not for naval attack with secondary attack on troops/airfield.

Do you have a saved turn where they did NOT attack for several turns running? Preferably, the turn before the one i just tried would be the ideal case.

As i mentioned, in any one turn weather could effect either the carrier hex and/or the target hex, but it would be extremely unlikely for this to happen 3 days in a row.

The programmers are unlikely to take in interest in a single-day failure, i think.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 36

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/29/2007 5:01:08 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Single day failures are exactly what the programmers should be looking at. The more I think on this problem, the more I keep coming back to the players being told that it is a bad idea for them to be told why their orders aren't obeyed. Your advice to reset the units orders would only make sense if the program is not always reading that the orders have been given in the first place! It would aid gameplay and debugging so much to include some note in the Ops reports or someplace "Unit X failed check Y".

And the whole keeping the player in the dark fails from a realism point. Any CO who could not explain why his unit did not at least attempt to carry out orders would not be CO. And don't tell me the player isn't the unit CO. If he isn't, why does he have to issue all the orders that the CO would, like CAP %, attack altitudes, etc.? You really think those orders were coming from CINCPAC or Tokyo? And even if they were, that they would not demand an explanation of why the missions weren't flown?

You want save games. Here's one: http://rapidshare.com/files/45664905/witp009.pws
All of these units have failed to fly for multiple days. VBF-8, 39 BG, VMF-511, 414 FG, VMSB-141, 142, 234, 235. All have had their orders re-issued several times. In some cases, other aircraft of the exact same type in the same hex assigned to the exact same mission have flown, but they don't. For VBF-8, its even units of the same type on the same mission in the same TF. Why?

Its not the weather, because other units in the same hex fly just fine. (Or is this where the programmers finally admit that they generate and apply the weather for each unit individually?)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 37

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/29/2007 6:17:40 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

Sorry, i decline to invesigate single day failures at this time.

EDIT: In fact, since i was under the impression that the carriers would not fly their aircraft at ALL, and it is now apparent that they will, i decline to investigate this further.

i should not have offered to investigate the 3 day failure after it became apparent they flew on the 4th day - it was my mistake and so i withdraw the offer.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/29/2007 6:48:15 AM >

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 38

RE: Failure to Fly - 7/29/2007 6:37:24 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

The orders i saw were for straight-out attacks on the ground troops and airfield - not for naval attack with secondary attack on troops/airfield.

Do you have a saved turn where they did NOT attack for several turns running? Preferably, the turn before the one i just tried would be the ideal case.

As i mentioned, in any one turn weather could effect either the carrier hex and/or the target hex, but it would be extremely unlikely for this to happen 3 days in a row.

The programmers are unlikely to take in interest in a single-day failure, i think.

OK, that was the third day they didn't attack. I changed the orders to naval attack the following day (the fourth day), and they attacked like yours did. Finally, on the fifth day, they remained quiet despite having unchanged orders. I have the third and fifth days posted.

This suggests the probability the 5th CarDiv will attack Wake on a random date is less than 50%, hence that the game engine needs to be tuned. I don't believe there were any cases where a carrier air group failed to fly in WWII when it had targets.

For WiTP 2.0, I'd like to suggest two changes:
a. Replace these all-or-nothing decisions about launching with calculation of the number of available sorties. That's how the professionals operate. Sure, weather can shut things down, but nothing else will.
b. Allow surge operations to take place, at the cost of most of the aircraft involved having to go through extensive maintenance afterwards. That's the real historical advantage of a carrier over a land base--the ability to schedule movements so the ship is in range of a target when the air group is ready for a surge.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 39

RE: Failure to Fly - 8/1/2007 12:09:25 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

The pattern is becoming clear. When I give the 5th Carrier Division a Naval Attack mission, it will fly the secondary missions against Wake. When I order it to fly the Airfield Attack, Port Attack, or Ground Attack mission against Wake directly, not as a secondary mission, it fails to launch. For the current turn, I've switched back to direct orders to see if I can confirm this.

_____________________________

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> RE: Failure to Fly

Page: << < prev 1 [2]